Who are neither theist nor atheist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-01-2013, 07:31 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
(13-01-2013 06:58 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(13-01-2013 05:47 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Religions were likely needed and used during the development of early societies, serving with the duel benefit of being able to explain away hard questions, which at the time could not be answered, and acting as a uniting force within the primitive culture by giving the people within a common point of focus which added similarity between the smaller groups, giving greater reason to aid each other.

And of course it was later used as a highly effective excuse for atrocities.

We no longer need the feebal explanative power, and our cultures are interlinked enough to not need the common focus point either.

My position is that religion is not to blame for peoples atrocities, people are to be held accountible for that. Religion is simply an organized belief of what reality is and sometimes the way humans ought to behave. Some religions may teach things that harm others, and that is wrong, but I'm not going to blame the religion, I will instead blame the people that created that religion. As to the Morals, if they are harmful to innocent society, then I believe there is something wrong with the ideals within that religion.

What I think people on here will also disagree with me about is that I believe what we don't need is for humanity to completely disregard any notion of there being an existence of something that is not natural. It is the very core of thinking -outside the box-. In a world where the natural is the only accepted answer to any of life's questions, anyone who thinks outside of this box will then be turned into todays "Atheist".
I believe that Science is not the only method mankind learns of reality and truth, Science only covers that which mankind can observe with each of their senses. That is a limit since it does not cover anything that can be reasoned with pure logic and deductive reasoning.
Things that are not necessarily Empirically observable can also be deducted to be inferred as true with other methods. Limiting ourselves to only one biased source will do exactly what keeps humans from progress.
That's pretty fuzzy thinking. Your first paragraph is rather twisted and nearly self-contradictory. What do mean mean by not blaming the religion when the tenets of that religion are the problem?

Science is our best method for discovering the universe. It is the only method that has given results.

Pure thought does not create knowledge, only reasoning from observation and evidence does.
And revelation is just bogus.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
13-01-2013, 10:15 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
For future reference.

Has beliefs (spiritual) = Theist
No beliefs (spiritual) = Atheist
Not sure (spiritual) = Agnostic

otay?

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 10:50 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
(13-01-2013 06:58 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  What I think people on here will also disagree with me about is that I believe what we don't need is for humanity to completely disregard any notion of there being an existence of something that is not natural. It is the very core of thinking -outside the box-. In a world where the natural is the only accepted answer to any of life's questions, anyone who thinks outside of this box will then be turned into todays "Atheist".
I believe that Science is not the only method mankind learns of reality and truth, Science only covers that which mankind can observe with each of their senses. That is a limit since it does not cover anything that can be reasoned with pure logic and deductive reasoning.
Things that are not necessarily Empirically observable can also be deducted to be inferred as true with other methods. Limiting ourselves to only one biased source will do exactly what keeps humans from progress.

To a certain extent, I agree that humans can not disregard any notion that is not within the realm of current scientific understanding. However, by it's very nature, science continually upgrades knowledge and understanding of the universe and humanity. Science does not limit itself to only one biased source but religion does. As does faith; the heart is indeed a lonely hunter.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kim's post
15-01-2013, 07:33 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
Drishtantoists are neither theist nor atheist, but
religious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
(15-01-2013 07:33 AM)ShaSha1 Wrote:  Drishtantoists are neither theist nor atheist, but
religious.


Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

I fail to see the advantage of being 'religious' and still claiming to be neither a theist or atheist. What does that mean? That you have dogmas but no god to back them up? Isn't a 'religion' without a 'god' just an ideology or a philosophy? And if so, why weigh yourself down with a extra baggage that a word like 'religious' carries unless you do believe in a god or gods?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-01-2013, 10:23 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
(15-01-2013 09:39 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-01-2013 07:33 AM)ShaSha1 Wrote:  Drishtantoists are neither theist nor atheist, but
religious.


Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

I fail to see the advantage of being 'religious' and still claiming to be neither a theist or atheist. What does that mean? That you have dogmas but no god to back them up? Isn't a 'religion' without a 'god' just an ideology or a philosophy? And if so, why weigh yourself down with a extra baggage that a word like 'religious' carries unless you do believe in a god or gods?
*clears throat* Ahem.


It's all philoso-bull anyway,

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2013, 04:29 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
Of course, Drishtantoists are neither theist nor atheist. Their religion is Drishtantoism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 02:15 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
(11-01-2013 01:52 AM)ShaSha1 Wrote:  
(11-01-2013 01:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's neither atheism or theism because it's a personnel philosophy. It's a completely different distinction.
All philosophies or religions have become developed personally.

ok
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: